Davenport v. Keith et al

Filing 131

ORDER denying 57 Motion to Disqualify Counsel and denying 58 Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/30/2014. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:14-CV-36-D

JONATHAN EDMOND DAVENPORT,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

ORDER

)

PASQUOTANK COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPUTY SAM KEITH, et al.,

)
)
)

Defendants.

)

On August 1, 2014, Jonathan Edmond Davenport ("plaintiff' or "Davenport") filed a motion
to disqualify Ronald G. Baker, Sr. ("Baker"), who is counsel for defendant Billy Roughton. See
[D.E. 57]. Davenport also filed a memorandum in support. See [D.E. 59]. On August 11, 2014,
Roughton responded in opposition. See [D.E. 67]. Davenport's motion to disqualify Baker relates
to an ongoing disciplinary proceeding that the North Carolina State Bar is pursuing against
Davenport's counsel, David Sutton. See [D.E. 59] 2-10; [D.E. 67] 2-5. Sutton's disciplinary
proceeding involves numerous alleged violations of the Ru1es of Professional Conduct in numerous
cases. See [D.E. 59-1] 1-17. Roughton's counsel, Baker, is the immediate Past President ofthe
North Carolina State Bar. The North Carolina State Bar is the organization responsible for attorney
disciplinary matters involving attorneys licensed to practice law inNorth Carolina. On May 9, 2014,
Roughton testified as a witness at a hearing in front of the State Bar Disciplinary Hearing
Commission concerning some of Sutton's conduct that is at issue in Sutton's disciplinary case. See
[D.E. 59-2] 1-37.
Baker has no conflict of interest with Davenport. See [D .E. 67]. Furthermore, Baker has no
control over or input into the ongoing disciplinary proceeding involving Sutton. See id.; see also

Sutton v. State Bar ofN.C., No. 5:14-CV-243-BR, 2014 WL 4546017 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2014)
(unpublished).' The motion to disqualify Baker as Roughton's counsel lacks merit and is denied.
On August 1, 2014, Davenport filed a motion for preliminary injunction [D.E. 58].
Davenport has not met his burden of proving entitlement to such extraordinary relief. See,

~,

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery
Cnty., 722 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2013) (en bane); Real Truth About Obama. Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d
342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089, reissued in relevant part, 607
F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
In sum, the court DENIES Davenport's motion to disqualify [D.E. 57] and DENIES
Davenport's motion for a preliminary injunction [D.E. 58].
SO ORDERED. This _3_0day of October 2014.

iSc.DEVERID
Chief United States District Judge

1

Although Sutton's disciplinary case remains pending, he apparently had a disciplinary
hearing last week. See North Carolina State Bar, Upcoming Disciplinazy Hearing Information,
http://www.ncbar.com/discipline/DHCview.asp?DHCpkey=396 (last visited Oct. 30, 2014). The
North Carolina State Bar website contains additional information about Sutton's disciplinary case.
See id.
2